Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Perils of an Ideological Presidency

By Jules Witcover May 10, 2007 8:45 pmMay 10, 2007 8:45 pm

That great pipe-puffing philosopher of the Nixon presidency, John Mitchell, once famously observed: “Watch what we do, not what we say.” In other words, forget the rhetoric and pay attention to the more telltale actions of what eventually became a disgraced administration.

Mitchell’s counsel can be instructive in assessing most presidencies, in which their guiding ideologies, carefully laid down in position papers and speeches, are sometimes carried forth in action, and sometimes not.

The most successful administrations are those in which their principles set a general course but not a restricting road map for achieving a president’s objectives. For example, Ronald Reagan talked often about fiscal restraint but yielded to tax increases when pragmatic advisers persuaded him they were required, and never seemed to get blamed for doing so.

His successor in the Oval Office, the senior George Bush, was hardly a rigid ideologue but he played one on television and in speeches designed to mollify the Republican right wing. Unlike Reagan, he got caught in the ideological trap with in his memorable “read my lips, no new taxes” speech accepting the party’s 1988 presidential nomination.

Bush subsequently went back on the pledge, outraging the G.O.P. faithful and severely undercutting his reelection hopes in 1992. At the same time, he was also castigated repeatedly for not having what he called “the vision thing.”
There’s nothing wrong with a president having an ideology to live by, as long as he doesn’t become a fanatic about it. Bill Clinton made it through two full terms by talking the talk of a committed liberal but not hesitating to walk a detour from time to time when politics and circumstances so dictated.

It could have been said about Clinton that he had convictions but not always the courage of them. A more charitable way of putting it was that he didn’t allow himself to be a captive of ideology when pragmatism offered a useful alternative. His pivot on welfare reform, which enraged many party liberals, made the point.

John Kennedy’s inaugural promise in 1961 to “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty” had a great ring to it. But it got him in hot water soon after in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and he tempered his actions thereafter. In the great showdown of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, he responded with a pragmatic, and successful, solution.

His successor, Lyndon Johnson, was probably more of a liberal ideologue than Kennedy, and he demonstrated it in his ambitious Great Society agenda. But he was also a master compromiser from his days as Senate leader, and never let himself get boxed in by his rhetoric when a desirable deal could be cut.

The same could have been said about Richard Nixon, who was never that much of a true-believing ideologue for all the oratorical red meat he threw to conservative Republicans. The most conspicuous evidence was in his 1972 “opening to China,” in which he temporarily shelved his vehement anti-communism to carve a large niche for himself in history.

However, the foreign policies of both Johnson and Nixon were largely driven by ideology — the need to contain the Soviet Union, and by their belief it was essential to arrest and roll back the spread of communism in South Vietnam. L.B.J.’s massive buildup of troops there and a rising American death toll eventually crippled his domestic agenda; Nixon on the other hand kept the war going and won reelection.

Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter were essentially free of any particular ideological commitments, as they provided a breathing spell to the nation recovering from the hangover of the Watergate affair. But Ford was in a sense its victim in 1976, by virtue of his pardon of Nixon, and Carter never gained the confidence of the American people in his own right, as he sought ineffectively to cope with economic woes, gas shortages and the taking of American hostages in Iran.

Reagan, the senior Bush and Clinton all gave more lip service to ideology than action. It was not until the junior Bush entered the White House in 2001 that a consistent ideological course was followed, and it didn’t manifest itself until the terrorist attacks of September 11 provided the framework and opportunity for one.

In his first seven months in office, he had bumped along under the benign banner of “compassionate conservatism,” which to many liberals seemed an oxymoron. Overnight, the 9/11 attacks gave purpose and direction to his new administration, justifying the invasion of Afghanistan to hunt down Osama bin Laden and the other Al Qaeda perpetrators. Self-defense, rather than any ideological engine, powered the military assault.

But the neoconservatives who had followed Vice President Dick Cheney into the administration, and their ideological braintrust led by Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon, quickly seized on the notion of invading Iraq as well. It was the first step in what evolved into a grandiose campaign not only to topple the dictator Saddam Hussein but to pursue their dreams of America as the sole superpower spreading democracy throughout the Middle East.

Bush found himself committed not merely to eradicating Al Qaeda in its Afghanistan base, but also in Iraq, which had become a magnet for all manner of anti-American, anti-Western terrorists. The mission thereafter segued into establishment of a new American-created fledgling democracy.

What has resulted from Bush’s decision to invade Iraq is a sectarian civil war that was far from the intent, with U.S. forces smack in the middle. Such has been the bitter fruit of an American presidency originally sold to the voters on a promise of compassionate conservatism.

At the same time, a domestic ideology that Bush had been proposing before 9/11 has withered in implementation. His quest for an “ownership society” has failed to convince American taxpayers to buy into a business partnership with the government through such schemes as investing social security taxes in the stock market and health savings accounts.

Thus has the ideological presidency of George W. Bush taken its toll on his legacy and on the stability of the country that never consciously bought into its governing premise.

A recent conversation with author Doug Wead (All the President’s Children) revealed that Bush needed no Neocon pushing to go after Iraq. Wead, who worked for both Bushes, told his wife in the month prior to the 2000 election, “if this guy is elected, we’re going to war with Iraq.” When I asked him why he didn’t warn the nation, he claims to have written a piece for USA Today containing his warning, but nobody listened. My point? Laying this senseless war at the feet of anyone other than George W. Bush is just plain wrong.

Wolfowitz and company did not “quickly seize[] on the notion of invading Iraq” after 9/11; they had been itching for a fight with Hussein since before the founding of the Project for the New American Century in 1997.

I believe that the author’s claim that Iraq was a top hub of anti-Western terror before the invasion is unfounded.
“…Iraq, which had become a magnet for all manner of anti-American, anti-Western terrorists.”
Iraq’s population may have been terrorized by its government, but the lead role of anti-American terrorism was not there. Instead, it was Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia that were much more responsible. Now if the author wants to claim that the invasion of Iraq has resulting in a dramatic increase in Iraq-based anti-Western terrorism, that would be a very different and more true statement, wouldn’t it?

I am not sure what Bush43’s ideology might be, but my best guess would be the “Divine Right of the Aristocracy”. Never admit mistakes, no accountability, know that you will always be rescued by others of your class, automatic admission to the best schools, graduate with no evidence of learning, put no effort into gathering knowledge, experience, or wisdom, disdain for opinions with which you disagree, expect total loyalty from family retainers, and reward that loyalty with total job security regardless of competence or integrity. Combine such a sense of unbounded entitlement with intellectual sloth and you get GWB.

The alarming fabrication that “Iraq…had become a magnet for all manner of anti-American, anti-Western terrorists” prior to the 03 invasion vitiates the author’s thesis. If indeed Iraq had presented a direct threat to the U.S. by harboring “all manner” of Anti-American terrorists, then ideology would have been an unnecessary motivation and justification for the war. Simple self-defense would have sufficed.

I agree with Dan H (see comment 2) – Iraq was not a terrorist-ridden society before the US invasion and you won’t find any expert who claims otherwise. The author’s claim to this end greatly detracts from his otherwise thoughtfully-written article. Unfortunately, the presence of US forces there has drawn terrorists from all over the world to Iraq to provide the opportunity to attack Americans.

I hope mr. Whitcover is not trying to establish some early on revisionist history as an apologist for GW Bush. Iraq was not the center of Anti Western, Anti American terrorism prior to the invasion which itself has created a cauldron of newly inflamed anti-americanism, terrorism etc. Also, there is only selfserving GW administration spin to claim that “self defense rather than any Idiolological engine powered the military assault. We know from Richard Clark’s book and others that Iraq was on the drawing board simutaneously with Afghanistan and the self defense issue

I, too, disagree strongly with the author’s assertion that Iraq had become a magnet for all manner of anti-western terrorists. I’ve seen nothing — nothing — to support that statement in all the years since this foolish adventure began. It certainly was part of the justification for the invasion but so were many other claims that have been thoroughly debunked since.

Ideology is just another word for lazy. It allows GW to hew the line, reassuring himself that he’s standing firm in a world full of fuzzy thinkers and flip-floppers. Everyone needs a framework to help understand the world and guide behavior, but that framework becomes a prison if one hasn’t done his homework, hasn’t got an informed world view, isn’t educated well enough to discern the best course of action in complicated circumstances. GW’s behavior reminds us daily that he’s simply not up to the tasks before him, and the American people who elected him share in the blame. Shame on us for letting fear determine our course.

Does anybody else remember how George Bush consistently campaigned on “a more humble foreign policy”? Instead he really wanted to spread Democracy by military force on the other side of the world. What a cruel and cynical tragedy.

President Bush’s policies represent only an at-
tempt to establish an imperial presidency. His
attack on Iraq was doomed to disaster from the
start. He could replace Saddam but what would he
replace him with. He and his NeoCon friends thought they could build a Middle East of demo-
cracies friendly politically and economically to
the United States at the point of a gun. If people
are to live in a Democracy they must be the choosers. It is not up to us. To think other-
wise is culturally ignorant. What people want
most of all is food, shelter, opportunity, and
safety and security. We, in this Country, look
for more. That doesn’t mean people in what was
nothing more than empty desert before the advent
of oil economies want the same things we do. Some
probably do, most don’t. We neede to leave it up
to them. Our Military will not secure the things
they desire, only the things we desire. Our
tunnel-visioned foreign policy serves us badly.
If we truly want to promote democracy around the
world, let us do it in a more productive and less
destructive way. It is not whether or not our
form of government and economy are superior in
promoting freedom and choices, but whether it is
our right and duty to force it on people ill-pre-
pared for it. That’s not our decision to make.
It is theirs!

You overlook the real dangers of the ideology of George. The insidious infiltration at all levels of government with religious sycophants and industry lobbiest is only now coming to light. The wolves and foxes are in the government henhouse; there will be no eggs left when this gang exits the government. It will take generations to purge the effects of these 8 years; maybe longer to rid the Supreme Court of these “dirty old men”!

By the way, consider the possibility that George has not one iota of interest in foreign actions; his Rovian focus is only, and I mean only, on domestic political power; all the rest is “Wag the Dog” to divert attention and provide the means to usurp power from Constitutional and legal constarints.

One of Bush’s problems is that he lacks the communication skills and the imagination to pivot, even when necessary. So he gets locked in. He can sell this as sticking with his true values. But the result is that our adversaries can play him, and us, mercilessly.

As noted in several of the comments above,pre-invasion Iraq was no “magnet for all manner of anti-Western terrorists”. Saddam’s regime had zero tolerance for terrorists of any ilk save his own, and had both the power and will to enforce that policy. With our own invasion we have transformed the one certain unsafe haven for terrorist operations in the Middle East into a virtual petrie dish where terrorists multiply, are trained, gain technical expertise and battle experience. The world will suffer the spawn of George Bush’s Iraq War for generations to come.

During the Iraq war with Iran our government then took sides with the Iraqui government of Sadamm Hussein. At that time he was a butcher killer and all the world knew it. But our government, them , armed Sadamm Hussein. Our own government gave Sadamn the green light to invade Kuwait, at least the American embassador in Bagdah did.

I was living in Biloxi, Mississippi in the late 1980′ and early 1990′ and our own government was training hundreds of Sadamm Hussein pilots at Kessler AFB in Biloxi, Mississippi. A Bush was President or vice-President of the USA at that time.

Our involment with Iraq is not new. Follow the dots…… and it will take you to the House of the bushes.

I’m afraid my phraseology led to a misconstruing of my observation. Of course I was aware that Iraq was not a magnet for all manner of anti-American, anti-Western terrorism before the invasion and occupation. I meant that they had made it such a magnet and perhaps should have written …which after the invasion and occupation had become a magnet… My thanks to your questioning readers.

I won’t comment on his first term, but for the life of me I can’t understand his re-election.
I realize that voters were scared and it was the Republicans who clamed that they would keep us safe. But they were being so patronizing about their ‘so-called safe and security’ message.
But the majority of American voters bought it and here we are.
However, I was and still am so very pleased with the 2006 election. That election restored my faith in the American voting public.
Ruth Beazer

Congratulations to Jules Witover for clarifying the “magnet…for terrorism” statement in his article. The world would be safer today if GWB had a similar ability to adjust course when his policies and words fail so miserably. Better yet, he should never have empowered the ideologues who have so damaged America in their rolses as decision-makers in his Administration.

i was pleased to read that not a single one of the 17 above responses defended W in any way.
i read last year in an article of George will,s that the invasion of Iraq is the most disastrous foreign-policy decision in the history of the Inited States. It,s not hard to agree with a criticism like that knowing what a bad president W is.

You have a President/Vice-President who, in my opinion, are the worse duo in the entire history of the United States. You have a President who failed three times in business, went AWOL during the Vietnam War, was probably an alcoholic, and even traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago Cubs! It all boils down to competence, “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job”. The thing that gets to me about the “neo-cons” is that they supposedly hate government, yet use government when they are in power to loot the public monies. It will take this once great nation at least 50 years to get over the Bush (shrub) presidency. I am voting for the most competent Democratic presidential candidate after what we have had for the last 6 years! The Republican party needs to disintegrate for going along with Bush/Cheney. Now we see Bush blinking on Iraqi War funding, however, what did it take for him to budge; not close to 4000 deaths in Iraq, not 25,000 boys/girls maimed for life, not $1,000,000,000,000 spent on this terrible mistake, not the fact that the Iraqi Parliment wants to go on “vacation” for two months. Bush blinked when Republican Congressmen told him that they would go down the sewer in the 2008 elections. This independent voter will NEVER vote for another Republican, even for dog catcher. The dogs deserve better!

The editorial presupposes an ideological philosophy that I propose never existed: that of establishing Middle East democracy. Since this administration scarcely grasps what democracy is and has imperial aspirations, it is hard to imagine the genesis of democracy anywhere under their watch. Invading Iraq was an opportunistic venture. I think the neocons knew perfectly well that Saddam Hussein was an ineffective blowhard and determined that getting rid of him would give them access to vast oil wealth. It seemed clear to me that they planned to invade Iraq with or without good cause.

The smoke and mirrors of this administration have produced miraculous results. The one-two punch of the 9/11 attack and the anthrax attack a month later handed the country to the Cheney/Rumsfeld duo better than anticipated, through the politics of fear. Bush sat for several minutes contemplating what Cheney had told him about the impending moments of the 4 planes. Donald ran around pulling people from the wreckage after the 3rd plane was down, as he reported to the 9/11 Commission. Daschele was a weenie and had to be driven back by Cheney and anthrax(I know Carl wanted to use that one in his Medal of Freedom acceptance speech but I believe it was Cheney that shot that man in the face) to get party support for the imperial president. Sorry Georgie but in your case president isn’t capitalized, capitalization is lost on you.
Since early on the lady, Minnie Lou, was draped by Ashcroft in an act we all winced at, defacing Justice. But while we all sat cowered in fear and watched the smoke just over the horizon promoted by Condi, Monica was running through the halls of Justice chiseling and defacing the pillars of our freedom and justice in an act similar to the Taliban defacing the Buddhist stone carvings but with far reaching consequences we can only speculate on.
I predict the VP will be president before the 2008 elections. We will attack Iran and the unitary executive will declare himself king of America.